D4570
Well-known member
I Hope it works
Wild Bison Survey for MT
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
MThuntr
Well-known member
D4570 brings up a good point...let's say a population is established in the CMR. Do the tribes get to establish traditional hunting rights?
I'm curious to what happens to the existing grazing leases on the CMR? Adding bison without removing cattle would be an ecological disaster and I know there isn't enough grass out there. I'd wager some allotments can bare feed the cows that are on them now (some lease AUMs haven't been changed since the 60s and we know cows and calves have gotten bigger since then...some by as much as 30%)
FWIW I'm on the proverbial fence with this subject as I want bison...I want to hunt bison...but I also have friends with grazing leases on both sides of the CMR that would likely lose grazing leases and they're already being approached by out-of-state interest for recreational properties.
I'm curious to what happens to the existing grazing leases on the CMR? Adding bison without removing cattle would be an ecological disaster and I know there isn't enough grass out there. I'd wager some allotments can bare feed the cows that are on them now (some lease AUMs haven't been changed since the 60s and we know cows and calves have gotten bigger since then...some by as much as 30%)
FWIW I'm on the proverbial fence with this subject as I want bison...I want to hunt bison...but I also have friends with grazing leases on both sides of the CMR that would likely lose grazing leases and they're already being approached by out-of-state interest for recreational properties.
Last edited:
Tribal rights are set by treaty. To my knowledge, there are no treaty rights that would extend to the CMR or a state-sponsored bison herd. The Ystone treaties allow for harvest, so tribes either take their animals through hunting, or through the test & slaughter route that happens when bison leave the park & are found to be Brucellosis positive.
The grazing aspect is one of the stickier wickets to work out. Totally agree.
Bugle 'Em In
Well-known member
Thank you for the detailed response D4570, its good to have a civil discussion. I appreciate your time and thoughts. Gives a person some things to chew on.
I truly want a chance to hunt a "wild" bison someday. If the expansion of a herd on the CMR creates a Yellowstone 2.0 for the common hunter's opportunity, then I think our money could be better spent elsewhere. Plus, I don't know what the answer is to take into consideration for the ranchers. They need to be in the conversation.
A lot of layers to this onion.
I truly want a chance to hunt a "wild" bison someday. If the expansion of a herd on the CMR creates a Yellowstone 2.0 for the common hunter's opportunity, then I think our money could be better spent elsewhere. Plus, I don't know what the answer is to take into consideration for the ranchers. They need to be in the conversation.
A lot of layers to this onion.
Schaaf
Well-known member
lol at 24 hour patrols by the CMR on the prairie dog towns. They've got like 2 paid LEO's that cover a nearly 1 million acre refuge.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Blackfeet treaty of 1874?
geetar
Well-known member
This comes to mind. https://images.app.goo.gl/rLXrLBgXk3yrq2FY6
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Sorry act of congress, possibly not a treaty. I remember it coming up with the recent 2016 water rights bill introduced by Tester.
Not sure if it would afford hunting rights, but given the recent supreme court ruling, and having no knowledge of the subject matter, I lean towards maybe?
Personally, and with full knowledge of the current Nez Perce Yellowstone debacles, I wouldn't object to some portion of the bison harvest allocated to the tribe. My personal preference, in general, would be for their to be established quotas in situations like these so there is a bit more control of harvests, i.e. statute stating that in Units XXX, a third class of resident shall be created by MFWP; tribal members may apply for this quota or the resident quota but not both. To apply for the tribal quota one must live on the reservation and be a recognized member of the tribe.
Tribe 30%
Residents 60%
Non-Residents 10%
MThuntr
Well-known member
Looks like it grants "parties of this treaty, may hunt on the trail leading down the Muscle Shell (sic) to the Yellow Stone"...there's more...
EDIT: It may have expired 99 years after treaty signing
Acts of congress can be changed and don't carry the same weight as a treaty. Having said that, there would likely need to be some discussion relative to the Herrera decision that would include all wildlife, not just bison. That would likely occur bison or not.
